Subj: MY TAKE ON MEL GIBSON [YOU MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME] 
Date: 2/4/2004 1:10:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: EDUARD009


DEAR FRIENDS, THIS IS ONLY PART OF A POST THAT I TRIED TO PUT UP BEFORE. I DIFFER WITH COMMON OPINION ON THE SUBJECT OF MEL GIBSON'S [I BELIEVE, SLANDEROUS] UPCOMING FILM, 'THE PASSION OF CHRIST AND HERE ARE SOME OF MY REASONS WHY:
MEL GIBSON = 666
Message 1 of 3 Subject 1 of 50
Subject: MEL GIBSON = 666
Date: 2/4/2004 12:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: EDUARD009

After obtaining a draft of the screenplay, written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald, the [Catholic] scholars found reasons to think the worst. ''The basic story line has [the high priest] Caiaphas and this hateful Jewish mob pursuing Jesus relentlessly,'' says Dr. John T. Pawlikowski, a professor at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, and the first scholar to review the script. (He was recently questioned by an investigator hired by Gibson's Icon Entertainment to determine the source of the screenplay leak.) ''We find this thematically contrary to biblical and historical scholarship.''

Then there were bits not found in the Bible at all. One sequence had Jews nailing together Christ's cross inside a temple. The script also had ''a cabal of Jews,'' says Pawlikowski, ''collecting money to help the process of doing in Jesus.''

Korn, who saw a rough cut, believes ''The Passion'''s characterization of Jews remains troublesome. Gibson has screened the film for select audiences and is said to be making minor changes to address some criticisms.
____________________________________
IF GIBSON'S DEMONIC FLIC IS BIBLICALLY CORRECT, THE ABOVE-MENTIONED SCENES WOULD NOT BE APPEARING IN THIS PIECE OF FILTH. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE JEWS NAILED JESUS TO THE CROSS, LET ALONE IN THE TEMPLE!

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, WAKE UP! SATAN IS TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU YET AGAIN!
___________________________________________________

Message 2 of 3 Subject 1 of 50
Subject: Re: MEL GIBSON = 666
Date: 2/4/2004 12:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: EDUARD009

The Passion of Christ
by The Rev. Cn. Mark Stanger
Last week, I attended a special pre-screening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, set for commercial release on February 25th.

Charges of anti-Jewish content, gratuitous gore (giving it an R rating), and general fuzziness of concept have not been good omens for Mr. Gibson's self-financed, idiosyncratic portrayal of the final hours of Jesus of Nazareth.

I would not recommend the film to a devout Christian, skeptical Jew, or avid Hollywood buff. My fairly traditional Catholic 76-year-old mother, who accompanied me, found it "plodding" and the protracted violence of the torturing of the captured Jesus turned her stomach; she lasted till the end in order to see Gibson onstage, interviewed by the local pastor. (Telling about it at bridge later that week would be quite a trump card, worth any temporary discomfort.)

As a life-long Christian and lover of Jesus and the implications of his life and death for humanity, I found the film dull, trashy, and historically and biblically unsound. It's potentially as harmful to Christians as it may be for Jews.

The determined effort to give a patina of historical authenticity (which could be challenged on many essential points) is expressed most obviously by the use of Aramaic and Latin. Mr. Gibson, in the interview, said it was to add an air of "mysterious reality". Maybe so, but putting another language into a film doesn't necessarily add to its historical accuracy or truthful storytelling.

More disturbing was his second reason for the language barrier. He compared it to a film depicting ferocious Vikings descending with all their barbarous intent and weaponry on a peaceful village. "To have them step off the ship, ready to attack, but speaking English, would diminish the sense of such a frightening confrontation. The same goes for those who put Jesus to death." Apart from the logical inconsistency (the speech of Jesus and his followers was also subtitled, after all), the idea that more brutal terror would be evoked by non-English speakers strikes me as chillingly xenophobic.

The film's anti-Jewish bias magnifies what the Christian scriptures do indeed contain: a growing discomfort between this wild new group of Jews for Jesus and faithful mainline Jewish groups of that time and place. But having the temple high priest Caiaphas as the prominent cheerleader demanding crucifixion unduly villainizes him and the faith tradition he represents. The focus on Pilate's hand-washing (only in Matthew's account) reinforces the perception that the "blame" is laid squarely on the Jews. This is, of course, preposterous and offensive to Jew and Christian alike: Christian theology -- and even a bit of this fragmented film -- affirms that the death of Jesus was freely accepted and necessary. Complicity in his death is shared by the Roman occupying power (the charge and the sentence were theirs), religious traditionalists (who happened to be Jewish), an out of control mob, and, most significantly, by the weak and spineless disciples of Jesus.

Mr. Gibson's larger bias, regrettably shared by thousands, is that the Gospels have been diluted of their power by "revisionists" -- his disdainful word for the past two generations of faith-filled, critical scholars of the texts, including the startlingly enlightened and coherent official principles for biblical interpretation promulgated by the assembled bishops of the Roman Catholic Second Vatican council of the 1960's. Gibson further dismissed the idea that the gospel writers had "agendas", a concept that puts him firmly outside official Catholic teaching and all of mainstream Christian biblical interpretation. That wholesome tradition recognizes the very definite theological, pastoral, and spiritual agendas of the written gospels, not as eyewitness accounts, but as theological works (faith-filled screenplays, if you will) to answer questions and express divine truths in a particular time and place. The late Fr. Raymond Brown, in his masterful two-volume The Death of the Messiah or his profound little booklet A Crucified Christ in Holy Week, far outshines this $30 million piece of bizarre and lurid propaganda.

The violence-induced "R" rating is compared by the film's promoters to the same rating given to "such fine films as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan." The biblical accounts are supremely less wanton and morbid. The Gospel writers straightforwardly and soberly state that after arriving at Golgotha, "There they crucified him." Only Hollywood, or an overactive and distorted religious imagination, would add such details, literally ad nauseam.

When the pastor-interviewer tried to commit him to doing more biblical films, Gibson squirmed and wisely said, "there are a lot of good stories out there." Indeed, the greatest literature and films often illuminate the mysteries of human suffering, redemption, salvation, forgiveness, brutality and betrayal, renewal and resurrection. For "religious" inspiration, it's often best to skip Hollywood altogether and find a generous group of praying believers. Or go for Hollywood's best and noblest offerings. The Passion of the Christ is not among them.

-- The Rev. Cn. Mark Stanger
_________________________________________

Message 3 of 3 Subject 1 of 50
Subject: Re: MEL GIBSON = 666
Date: 2/4/2004 12:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: EDUARD009

FROM ANOTHER CATHOLIC WEBSITE:
"One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels.  They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned.  This is a danger for The Passion.  It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a 'version' of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.
EXCERPTED FROM A "STATEMENT ON THE PASSION OF CHRIST"
By Fr. Peter Malone, President SIGNIS: The World Catholic Association for Communication
10th November 2003   
 
_______________________________________

FROM ED, PLEASE NOTE:

DEAR FRIENDS,
I DO NOT WISH TO OFFEND ANYONE AND AM NOT TRYING TO DEMEAN JESUS CHRIST OR THE STORY OF CHRIST [IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM]; I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS FILM ARE PURPORTEDLY NOT EVEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT [OF THE BIBLE]! IF THIS BE THE CASE, AND THE SCENES IN QUESTION ARE [OBVIOUSLY] VIRULENTLY ANTI-JEWISH, THEN I  ASK OF YOU,  WHAT NEGATIVE FORCE IS BEHIND THIS FLICK AND WHAT AGENDA IS [HOLOCAUST DENYING FATHER] MEL GIBSON TRYING TO PUSH ON AN UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC? [NOT TO MENTION POTENTIALLY GULLIBLE AND PERHAPS EVEN DANGEROUS, ANTI-SEMITIC PUBLIC]

OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN HALF THE IMPRESSIONABLE PEOPLE WHO WILL SEE THIS FLICK WILL NOT BE AWARE THAT IT IS AN "ARTISTIC PORTRAYAL" AND NOT THE GOSPELS ITSELF -- & THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MEL & HIS EVIL ILK ARE COUNTING ON.

GOD PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I AM WRONG.

AND IF I AM WRONG, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE WHO I SENT THIS EMAIL TO.

EDUARD009 


Re: Mel Gibson's movie: "The passion" Feb-2004

By Ed

HITLER, 1930's: "THE [Oberammergau, Germany] PASSION PLAY IS A CONVINCING PORTRAYAL OF THE MENACE OF JEWRY"
MEL GIBSON, 2003: "The Passion" will be the most authentic account ever of the crucifixion".
HUTTON GIBSON [MEL'S DAD], 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's: in his dangerously anti-Jewish books [& interviews] has said, on more than one occasion, that the "Holocaust never happened" and that "There weren't even 6 million Jews on the whole planet during WWII" Christianity Today Magazine-PASSION PLAY-Oberammergau Overhaul: Indeed, since Germany is the land of Dachau, Buchenwald, Belsen, and the rest, a sensitized world [it] has inevitably scrutinized the script of "The Passion Play" each decade since World War II. The play booklet for Oberammergau 2000 fully appreciates this reality: "We must nevertheless admit that this Passion Play, too, contributed in various ways to prepare the soil which eventually yielded the terrible harvest of the extermination of the Jews."

The people of Oberammergau, then, have hardly been deaf to claims of anti-Semitism, charges that came not only from Jewish sources but also from Roman Catholics and Protestants. In the 1980 production, a preface in the play booklet warned against shifting blame for Good Friday to any ethnic group rather than to all of humanity. This has been enlarged in the 2000 version, a concern that fairly dominates the preface.

Since 1980, the harshest language of Jesus' opponents has been moderated or cut. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea now speak up for Jesus before leaving the Sanhedrin in disgust, accurately demonstrating that not all Jews concurred in Jesus' condemnation. The point was further underscored when a sizable number in the crowd before Pilate cry out in Jesus' behalf. This was not a case of deviating from the Gospels in order to please critics, as Luke 23:27 demonstrates.

Further improvements came in the 1990 version: Jesus and his disciples assumed prayer shawls at the opening of the Last Supper, showing that he was a Jew among Jews. Judas no longer wore coward's yellow, nor Caiaphas a horned hat?a demonic symbol in the Middle Ages. The Blood Curse of Matthew 27:25 was pronounced only once.

The 2000 edition not only maintains these changes, but has added more. Pontius Pilate no longer shouts the blood curse at all. More texts from the Old Testament appear. Jesus offers a blessing in Hebrew at the Last Supper. Judas now is motivated not by greed but by political considerations: his disappointment in Jesus for not leading a revolt against Rome. Jesus' Jewish defenders during Holy Week are given more lines and more enthusiasm.

But the biggest surprise is the "conversion" of Gamaliel, who now appears solidly in Jesus' camp with much more dialogue. While such a characterization might be drawn from the way this revered member of the Sanhedrin spoke in behalf of the Jerusalem apostles, according to Acts 5:34ff., it is extremely doubtful that Gamaliel ever became a Christian: his disciple Saul of Tarsus would not have persecuted the earliest Christians had that been the case, and Jewish history would not have accorded Gamaliel such high praise had he converted.

Are such changes enough to satisfy those who raise the charge of anti-Semitism? Almost. While some differences remain, the Anti-Defamation League agreed that "substantial improvements have been made from the 1980 to 1990 production and even more far-reaching ones for the 2000 Play." The American Jewish Committee finds "vast improvements over earlier versions."
__________________________________________

"Oberammergau, Germany"--a town where the Passion play (and other Biblical stories), even now continue to be played. Many narratives describe Oberammergau as a living picture of the New Testament, ignoring the fact that, in 1934, the director of "The Passion Play" was already a member of the Nazi party. The actor who played Christ joined the Nazi party in 1939. By the end of WWII, every actor in the play had at one time been a Nazi, with the exception of the men who played, ironically, Judas and Pontius Pilate. In 1934, Hitler saw the Passion and was greeted with open arms (HITLER): "THE [Oberammergau, Germany] PASSION PLAY IS A CONVINCING PORTRAYAL OF THE MENACE OF JEWRY".

Act II quotes the 1934 Oberammergau script (which has since been revised to soften its anti-Semitism) as well as quoting verbatim a speech made by Hitler expressing his admiration for the Oberammergau Passion. "

"Set in the German village of Oberammergau, the actors are dealing with Hitler, who has endorsed the dramatization of the death of Christ as way to promote his anti-Semitic agenda, said Ruhl."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The following is a Great commentary about the "Prolonged Torture ever Put on Film."
Mel Gibson should try to pick just one Jew out of the Holocaust and play it for... 5 years!

A.

-----------------


March 09, 2004, 4:08 p.m.

Bloody Passion

By William F. Buckley [A Christian]
About a movie.

The film by Mel Gibson is moving because of its central contention, namely that an innocent man of high moral purpose was tortured and killed. It happens that the man in question, Jesus of Nazareth, is an object of worship, and that harm done unto him, in the perspective of those (myself included) who regard him as divine, is especially keen because it is not only inhuman, it is blasphemous.

 

But suppose that a similar travail had been filmed centered upon not a Nazarene carpenter who taught the duty of love for others, but, say, an attempted regicide. In 1757 Robert-Fran篩s Damiens set out to assassinate Louis XV. The failed assassin was apprehended, and the king quickly restored from his minor wound. The court resolved to make an enduring public record of what awaits attempted regicides, to which end were gathered together in Paris the half-dozen most renowned torturers of Europe, who in the presence of many spectators, including Casanova, managed to keep Damiens alive for six hours of pain so artfully inflicted, before he was finally drawn and quartered. What kind of an audience could Mel Gibson get for a depiction of the last hours of Robert-Fran篩s Damiens?

The film depends, then, on the objectification of the victim as ? Jesus of Nazareth; but even then, the story it tells is a gross elaboration of what the Bible yields.

Consider Matthew: "And when [Pilate] had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified." "Then they spat on Him and took the reed and struck Him on the head." Luke: "I will therefore chastise Him and release Him"-Luke records that the soldiers "mocked" him. And John: "So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him." "And they [the soldiers] struck him with their hands."

What Gibson gave us in his Passion is the most prolonged human torture ever seen on the screen. It is without reason, and by no means necessarily derivative from the grand hypothesis that, after all, the crucifixion was without reason, as Pontius Pilate kept on observing. One sees for dozens of minutes soldiers apparently determined to flog to death the man the irresolute procurator had consented merely to "chastise." There are records of British mariners who were literally flogged to death, receiving four hundred strokes of the cat-o'-nine-tails delivered on separate vessels, lest any sailor in the fleet be deprived of the informative exercise.

It isn't only the interminable scourging, which is done with endless inventories of instruments. The Bible has Christ suffering the weight of the cross as he climbs to Golgotha, but that is not enough for Gibson. He has stray soldiers impeding Christ every step of the way, bringing down their clubs and whips and scourges in something that cannot be understood as less than sadistic frenzy.

I write as author of a book (Nearer, My God) in which I included a vision of the Crucifixion by an Italian mystic, Maria Valtorta. A learned priest cautioned against taking this liberty. "Valtorta seems to have solved the Synoptic problem that's been plaguing scholars for centuries, viz., the contradictions between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. She has St. Dismas, the good thief, blessing Christ; Matthew (xxvii.44) has him reviling Him (Luke and Mark do not); she has Our Lord drinking gall mixed with vinegar (Mark xv.36 has Him drinking just vinegar). I was amused to see Joseph of Arimathea boldly traversing the line of 50 soldiers and the angry Jews in order to get near the Cross, since in Mark (xv.43) we're told he 'took courage' to go to Pilate to retrieve the body."

This kind of improvisation is headlong in Gibson's Passion. Still, the film cannot help moving the viewer, shaking the viewer, even as he'd be moved and shaken by seeing a recreation of the end of Robert-Fran篩s Damiens or one of those British sailors flogged to death. The suffering of Jesus isn't intensified by inflicting the one-thousandth blow: that is the Gibson/Braveheart contribution to an agony which was overwhelmingly spiritual in character and perfectly and definitively caught by Johann Sebastian Bach in his aptly named Passion of Christ According to St. Matthew. There beauty and genius sublimate a passion which Gibson celebrates by raw bloodshed. The only serious question left in the viewer's mind is: Should God have exempted this gang from His comprehensive mercy? But that is because we are human, Christ otherwise.

Home